> Game theory says otherwise. Tit for Tat
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit-for-Tat) is known to be optimal or
> near-optimal in most situations, regardless of whether the competitors
> are friendly or unfriendly. Being as friendly as possible is not an
> optimal strategy, at least if you're looking for maximum gain, because
> unfriendly agents will exploit you.

There is a major difference between friendly as possible and Friendly as
possible. Friendly does not require that you allow unFriendlies to eploit
you. I've been real clear about that all along. This is a strawman where
you are attributing a position to me that I have explicitly refuted.

> Before you talk about defending a planet from a better-armed alien
> invasion, here's a much simpler scenario: You have $1,000 worth of
> stuff in your pocket. A robber walks up to you with a gun, and demands
> that you hand over the loot. How will your Friendliness theory
> convince the robber to leave, without shooting you or stealing your
> stuff?

It probably won't. He won't stick around long enough to be infected.
Again, this is a strawman. You're inventing a ridiculous scenario and
demanding that I defend it. I decline to do so unless you can show how it
is at all justified or relevant.

In fact, I'm going to start ignoring your sillier strawmen like these two.
Either come up with a good argument or explain why *YOU* are filling the
list with garbage.